FELIX AZUELA, Petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA

CASTILLO substituted by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006
TINGA, J.:
FACTS: The petition filed by petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the
notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo. Petitioner is the son of the cousin of the decedent
(nephew). The three named witnesses to the will affixed their signatures on the left-hand
margin of both pages of the will, but not at the bottom of the attestation clause. The
probate petition adverted to only two (2) heirs, legatees and devisees of the decedent,
namely: petitioner himself, and one Irene Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided
abroad. Petitioner prayed that the will be allowed, and that letters testamentary be issued
to the designated executor.
The petition was opposed by Geralda Castillo, who represented herself as the attorney-infact of "the 12 legitimate heirs" of the decedent (grandchildren, namatay na asawa and
anak). Geralda Castillo claimed that the will is a forgery. Oppositor Geralda Castillo also
argued that the will was not executed and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed
out that decedents signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will
was not properly acknowledged. These twin arguments are among the central matters to
this petition.
After due trial, the RTC admitted the will to probate and ruled the will in question is
authentic and had been executed by the testatrix in accordance with law. It also ruled that
there is substantial compliance with the formalities required by law. (1. May Attestation
at acknowledgment, 2. kahit walang number of pages 2 pages lang naman daw, 3.
signing ng attesting witness sa left margin instead sa bottom ng attestation substantial
complaince na daw) The CA reversed the trial court and ordered the dismissal of the
petition for probate. The CA noted that the attestation clause failed to state the number of
pages used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE: WON there is substaintial compliance with the formalities required by law
HELD: NO. Material in this case is Art. 805 and 806. The appellate court, in its Decision,
considered only one defect, the failure of the attestation clause to state the number of
pages of the will. The total number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign did
so in the presence of each other must substantially appear in the attestation clause, being
the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings. (J.B.L. Reyes, also mentioned
in Caeda v. CA) The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on
which the will was written remains a fatal flaw, despite Article 809. The purpose of the
law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which the will is written is to
safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to
prevent any increase or decrease in the pages. The failure to state the number of pages
equates with the absence of an averment on the part of the instrumental witnesses as to
how many pages consisted the will, the execution of which they had ostensibly just

witnessed and subscribed to. Following Caneda v. CA there is substantial compliance

with this requirement if the will states elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised of.
However, in this case, there could have been no substantial compliance with the
requirements under Article 805 since there is no statement in the attestation clause or
anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which comprise the will.
However, an examination of the will itself reveals a couple of even more critical defects
that should necessarily lead to its rejection. For one, the attestation clause was not
signed by the instrumental witnesses. While the signatures of the instrumental
witnesses appear on the left-hand margin of the will, they do not appear at the bottom of
the attestation clause which after all consists of their averments before the notary public.
The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on the lefthand margin conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as their signatures to
the attestation clause. This is untenable, because said signatures are in compliance with
the legal mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If an
attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the bottom thereof, be admitted as
sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause to a will on a subsequent occasion and in
the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.
Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition
should also hinge. The requirement under Article 806 that "every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" has also not
been complied with. In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, wrote "Nilagdaan
ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila." By
no manner of contemplation can those words be construed as an acknowledgment. An
acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It might be possible to
construe the averment as a jurat, even though it does not hew to the usual language
thereof. A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before him/her,
the document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor. Yet even if we consider what
was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will would nonetheless remain invalid, as
the express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and not merely
subscribed and sworn to.
NOTE: There are two other requirements under Article 805 which were not fully satisfied
by the will in question. We need not discuss them at length, as they are no longer material
to the disposition of this case. The provision requires that the testator and the instrumental
witnesses sign each and every page of the will on the left margin, except the last; and that
all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each
page. In this case, the decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both pages of the will
on the left margin, her only signature appearing at the so-called "logical end" of the will
on its first page. Also, the will itself is not numbered correlatively in letters on each page,
but instead numbered with Arabic numerals. There is a line of thought that has disabused
the notion that these two requirements be construed as mandatory. Taken in isolation,
these omissions, by themselves, may not be sufficient to deny probate to a will. Yet even
as these omissions are not decisive to the adjudication of this case, they need not be dwelt

on, though indicative as they may be of a general lack of due regard for the requirements
under Article 805 by whoever executed the will.